You completely ignored the point. Communities exist currently based on various injustices. You can't correct the injustice without having some impact on who's

You completely ignored the point. Communities exist currently based on various injustices. You can't correct the injustice without having some impact on who's in the community. You've argued that forcing anyone out of a community is a greater injustice than fixing any injustice in how that community operates. Your philosophy is a weird sort of artificial elevation of the status quo. It's almost like you believe moral good is lack of change and everything should remain constant all the time. I on the other hand believe progress is a good thing, even when it requires some change and even when not all of that change is a-priori beneficial to those affected by it. Your notions of what constitutes ruinous taxation is laughable since even a 100% LVT is set to the economic rent of the land. This can be expensive but it's certainly not ruinous since by definition the land can actually produce this value. I could also characterize your position as a weird sort of worship of income tax. I could satirize your weak beliefs in bodily autonomy since you think so highly of the government interfering in labour contracts and taking income. This expression would result in equally damning statements akin to the moral outrage you have produced rather than addressing my argument. But it wouldn't be substantive debate, just like your current low-brow cheap-shots aren't.